W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-linked-json@w3.org > February 2013

RE: Use FOAF or schema.org in examples?

From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2013 21:45:18 +0100
To: "'Dan Brickley'" <danbri@danbri.org>, "'Gregg Kellogg'" <gregg@greggkellogg.net>
Cc: "'Linked JSON'" <public-linked-json@w3.org>
Message-ID: <020801ce03e1$b747bd20$25d73760$@lanthaler@gmx.net>
> On Tuesday, February 05, 2013 9:32 PM, Dan Brickley wrote:

> > On 5 Feb 2013 11:03, "Gregg Kellogg" <gregg@greggkellogg.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Feb 5, 2013, at 10:49 AM, Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > I noticed that Manu and Dave have been replacing most uses of FOAF in the
> > > examples with Schema.org. On one hand, I find that good since probably more
> > > people know about schema.org than about FOAF. On the other hand I find it
> > > strange to use IRIs which do not resolve to anything useful when being
> > > dereferenced; in fact, you'll get a 404.
> >
> > I think using schema.org makes it more relevant to developers. The fact that
> > dereferencing a predicate IRI results in a 404 is a temporary issue, which I
> > believe DanBri is addressing. So, in the long run, it shouldn't be an issue.
>
> Yes, making per-property pages is on my list...

Awesome. In that case, I think we should switch to schema.org in all examples to be consistent. If no one objects, I will do that in the next couple of days.


--
Markus Lanthaler
@markuslanthaler
Received on Tuesday, 5 February 2013 20:45:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:39 GMT